The appellant submitted that the MAG recommends that he should bear only 25% liability based on the following reasoning. Scenario 7(b) in the MAG suggests that the driver of the straight-moving vehicle in the Discretionary Right Turn Scenario should bear 15% liability. The MAG further recommends that if the driver having the right of way exceeds the speed limit, his liability should be increased by 10%. On this basis, the appellant argued that he should bear 25% liability at most. However, the MAG also recommends that if the other vehicle has crossed the junction substantially, the liability of the driver having the right of way should be increased by 5% to 10% as he would have had greater opportunity to avoid the collision The video footages showed that the second respondent had almost crossed at least the path of the Nissan at the junction when the collision occurred. If the appellant had not been charging into the junction at a dangerous speed, he would have been in a much better position than the second respondent to prevent the accident from happening. The trial Judge’s apportionment of 35% liability on the appellant’s part was therefore in keeping with the MAG anyway.
